Categories

Meta

Category: Constellation

Analysis of my constellation sessions and how they benefit me going forward in my subject discipline.

Throughout my constellation sessions, I feel that I have gained a lot of valuable information when it comes to aiding in my development as a graphic designer. Throughout my sessions in the ‘Archaeologies of the unseen’ I was deeply intrigued and engaged with these lectures, the interaction with the tutor throughout the session provoked responses, which was contrasting from the ‘After Modernism’ lectures that weren’t very interactive and were more oriented on note taking and reading texts in between sessions to catch up due to the large Power Point presentations we didn’t always get to finish going through due to time restrictions. Although I may not have enjoyed every session I attended, I still feel that it was a valuable asset, and the theories and insights provided will definitely have a massive effect on my outlook when it comes to the way I view and create in the future.

I feel like I gained insights from both of the lecture groups despite being considerably more interested in one. I feel that throughout the archaeologies of the unseen lectures I felt more of a relation to graphic design due to it having a bit more of a modern social aspect in the way that the theories seemed to be more relateable to modern communications.
My term two essay, and the theories I researched along with the ideas that were sparked whilst writing definitely gave me a new perspective on the way I will approach my creative process in future, viewing the social aspects of the human reach and the way we can influence people as graphic designers definitely made me value outside opinions much higher than solely relying on my own as I progress through my work.

The theories we explored on perspective and ambiguity really stretched my imagination on the ways I can represent things metaphorically and the way I personally view artwork, it has inspired me to look deeper into imagery to find out what it truly represents rather than just analysing whether it looks good or not. Being able to find the true representation, seeing whether the image flows well or if it should even be viewed as an image or maybe even an object can benefit me when applied to my own work, by taking more time and carefully thinking about my layout or any other design decision I make throughout my creation process I can cleverly distribute aspects with representative connotations to implement further depth into my work.

I feel that the theories on perception have definitely made me think more carefully when I view new pieces of artwork, after being shown videos and images in class that presented us with optical illusions it made it very clear to me that I could always try my hardest to look as deep as possible into an image yet focusing to try and observe everything sometimes lead to us completely missing something drastic from the work. For example we watched a video of a group of people moving around and across the screen, but before we began watching we were told that something was going to happen and that it was obviously out of place, none of us even noticed due to all the hectic activity that was happening with the people on screen but a man in a gorilla suit walked straight through the middle of the set and we were all completely oblivious.

This showed me that even if you know there’s something you should be looking for in an image you should be thinking about how it’s perceived rather than instantly being able to pick it out from the image or video, but when we watched the video for the second time I decided to focus on a certain point on the screen and it enabled me to notice the person in the gorilla suit straight away as they walked on screen. I could use this when I create my own work, if I decided to use metaphorical or illusionary images, I feel that I would have a better understanding of how to implement them throughout the work to achieve the best effect I possibly could to utilise perspective to create an impactful piece that makes the viewer curious and possibly view the piece in the way I intended by sparking curiosity

After modernism has educated me on how the innovative art that we can experience regularly today came to be acceptable and learning about the extreme amount of elitism that art used to contain has been narrowed down considerably, which is something I really value as a graphic designer as I would not even be considered as someone who’s art would even be worth looking at all because my work isn’t realistic fine art paintwork. Realising these limitations have been lifted in the modern world really inspire me and will encourage me to attempt to go further outside the box in my best efforts to innovate as much as possible when I create.

I also feel that after modernism has broadened my mind when it comes to the analysis of imagery, in the sense that I seem to be able to distinguish and identify the more significant connotations throughout an image but also pick up on the smaller details quite efficiently as well in order to find deeper meaning within an image and to be able to tie said images into the theories I study at and insightfully display my own opinions and perspectives that I receive from my analysis.

I feel that in conclusion, constellation sessions albeit a drastic change from the regular subject practice definitely has a positive effect upon my subject discipline and the way I think about my creative process, it brings a deeper insights and encourages outside the box thinking enabling me to tie in outside sources to my work. Which I feel is a huge benefit when it comes to creating individual and innovating pieces of work that convey more complex and interesting messages and improving as a designer.

Materials, matter and the things we use respond to, and sometimes allow, our bodies to move and work. What we ‘create’ cannot entirely be understood in terms of a human intention working upon the world, but rather a collaboration with things from within a world.

habituated practice can just hide a larger more complex process of working with materials. if we just act without thinking what is really involved then are we really learning?

we usually go into creating something with a pre conceived plan of what the outcome might be and the materials we need to make it.

We looked into hylomorphism and analysed that in the creation process there is the matter and the form, the matter being the material you are using and the form being the arrangement you put it in. we discussed that working in this method means you pre-devise a chronological way of thinking in order to carry out procedures.

we then analysed making as growing and how it is theorised “I want to think of making, instead, as a process of growth. This is to place the maker from the outset as a participant in amongst a world of active materials. These materials are what he has to work with, and in the process of making he ‘joins forces’ with them, bringing them together or splitting them apart, synthesising and distilling, in anticipation of what might emerge” (Ingold, 2013, p. 21).

Today we had a very interesting lecture on materials and how when we use them we can essentially become one with them, repeated practice and use forms maps in your mind of how to correctly co-ordinate and balance yourself to incorporate for this added albeit temporary extension of your body in order to work better in tandem with the world and the objects around us, I believe that this can also be incorporated into design and the way a painter uses his brushes eventually developing a better understanding and progressing as an artist.

We believe that the body is self corrective striving to better itself with the use of tools developing muscle memories, another interesting theory is that people don’t have to end at their biological matter they can adopt new innovative ways to become more through the use of prosthetics or even a blind person using a stick to be able to safely navigate with less inhibitions than before.

Describe an object you view as Ambiguous

Personally I would describe a mirror as an ambiguous object, mainly due to the fact that no matter how you look at it, something will always be different, it has no set form either. Mirrors can be of all shapes and sizes, created to distort images such as the ones you find in carnivals that may give you a large head, make you fatter or thinner etc.

In this case their is no way you can give a globally accurate depiction of a mirror, only the image that you personally identify it by, you see what you expect to see based on the experience, your surroundings, the angle at which you are observing, if you are observing through a transparent object or do you have clear sight? Are you visually impaired or viewing from your peripheral vision? All these factors can affect the way you would view a mirror.

I feel that ambiguity is necessary to spark interest and differences in opinion among objects, and I also believe that there has to be an active relationship between the viewer and the object, to produce multiple interpretations there has to be variation and experimentation to fuel any sort of ambiguity. Further development is impossible if you come at it with a one sided approach and say “I looked into the mirror and saw myself, therefore a mirror is used to look at your reflection” when there are multiple uses and ideologies for what you see.

For example you don’t use the wing mirrors on your car to check whether your hair is looking good or if you have some food in your teeth, it has a function and a purpose but still provides multiple uses depending on how you interact with it yourself.

In conclusion I personally feel that for a mirror to be considered an unambiguous object, we would all have to have the same experience, without the idea of it being a projected perception unique to the viewer.

Session Notes

Selective perception, invisible gorilla video.
What you attend to is what you perceive as reality, not necessarily is physically in front of you.

The world is as I expect it: Imagination, Ambiguity and Perception.

Aims: to think about the statement ^^ and the ways in which our imagination plays a constructive role in how we perceive the world.Constructive Perception

Ambiguity

“Double realities” we mechanically pick up data from the richly detailed world. The visual field is created from brief snapshots. We see a stable world out there, yet out eyes are in constant movement.
Scotoma (blind spot) in the visual field present in normal people’s eyes
there are many features of the world that are not signalled by the eyes our through touch

Primary (objective) qualities – Secondary (Subjective) qualities

There is no colour in the world outside of the way that we perceive it

Perception of visual illusions reflecting upon your mental thought.
Neurological model of perception: The history and development of our individual neurosystems

Are we really just meat sacks? Isn’t there something more? What about Imagination?

Two competing theories debating whether the mind is used in relation to the brain or the brain is used in relation to a reaction from the mind

What we imagine can be very real; for any stimulus, be it visual or auditory, a biomorphic cause of a definite and intelligible nature is projected which enables the mind to take defensive measures, such stimuli arouse anxieties among savages or children who may project into such sounds the image of a snarling dog. (Warburg cites in Gombrich, 1970)

Perception is ‘Projective’ we always depict what is ‘familiar to us’ – our drawing reveal our imagination at work.

‘The World’ is inherently ambiguous?
We see what we expect to see
what we expect to see is contingent to our prior experiences
there is no innocent eye, it is always relevant to past experiences

All images are ‘potential Images’ they become real when perceived by the beholder and interpreted in different ways by different people

TASK – FIND AN OBJECT THAT YOU SEE AS ABMIGUOUS AND DESCRIBE HOW SO TO ANOTHER PERSON, AND DECIDE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO FURTHER TURN IT INTO AN OBJECT

Blog 300+ words

Trace and describe how everyday images, objects and artefacts can be understood as ambiguous, which describing an active relationship between the work and the viewer.

Today we were analysing thinking through drawing and how the way we view the world, and the difference between an image you see and a drawing of the same image, the drawing is just a composition of shapes, it isn’t the same image but you may still see it that way, it may have the same features in your mind but other’s will view it in their own individual way.

for example if you draw a smiley face on a piece of paper it’s not actually a face it’s the way you think personally embodied in that drawing. it’s technically a circle two dots and a small curved line but visualising it people don’t see it that way they see a face, they can read the emotion is drawings to find it’s representative image in their minds through visualisation.

Stella used an ordinary house-painter’s brush to establish the width of the stripes and worked with commercial paints taken straight from the can. He wanted to dispel any interpretive reading of his work, commenting in 1964, ‘My painting is based on the fact that only what can be seen there is there. All I want anyone to get out of my paintings and all I ever get out of them is the fact that you can see the whole idea without any confusion. What you see is what you see.’ The title of Six Mile Bottom refers to a village in England, where the poet Byron’s half-sister Augusta Leigh lived. (September 2004)

“Six Mile Bottom” is a piece by Frank Stella created in 1960, he has used Alkyd paint on 3000 x 1822 mm Canvas. I wanted to analyse it in relevance to the debate of ‘What is a Painting’. In person this piece projects itself in an aggressive and powerful manor, the way it is expressed is so dominant due to its unity and order establishing an eye catching illusion by combining three dimensional aspects with accurate use of symmetrical lines.

This Piece is intriguing in the way it has strayed from the regular conventions and limitations of paintings and incorporated features that are often generalised with Sculpture. Throwing the usual 2D surface and rectangular shape of canvas that were said to define what a painting should be removes the boundaries and gives the artist much more freedom to express themselves.

This innovation has sparked debate as to whether this piece should actually be viewed as a painting, sculpture, or as an object. Donald Judd has weighed in on this debate by expressing that he values the idea of using shaped canvases so that all the required space can be used and the artist doesn’t have to leave anything black or unnecessarily filled in.

I feel that even though this piece partly falls into both the minimalistic sculpture and painting categories in ways such as possessing three dimensions, being monochromatic and painted on canvas, possessing the use of basic shapes in painting, yet also an irregular form of basic shape in its canvas shape, I still see it as a painting. Historians such as Robert Rosenblum and Barbara Haskell have expressed similar views.

In their comments they seem to focus towards referring to this piece as an object for example in their quotes on “Six Mile Bottom”, “The result was a picture or, in some ways, an object of extraordinary tautness and indivisibility, in which the area of pictorial illusion and the palpable boundary that defined this illusion were suddenly confounded.” 32 – Robert Rosenblum. A response from Haskell was more presence orientated than the technical analysis given by Rosenblum, “The result was so totally divested of extra pictorial significance that it seemed to be more an object in itself than a painting…This painting-object was as palpably present as anything else in the viewer’s space.” 34 – Barbara Haskell.

In conclusion I see it as a painting due to the nature in which it is displayed, in essence the three dimensional aspect only further contributes to the further implied depth portrayed by the lines of the image in the first place, the symmetrical lines following along with the hole in the middle of the canvas just exaggerate the effect of the illusion being portrayed. The irregular mediums that have been implemented just seem like an addition to what would have probably been a very ordinary painting excluding them, produce the much needed boost to the image that gives it such power and projection albeit it inspired this debate to be sparked regarding its artistic orientation.